A contemporary artistic rendering of the July 11, 1804
duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton by J.
Mund.
Posted on 07/11/2008 8:48:56 AM PDT by yankeedame
A contemporary artistic rendering of the July 11, 1804
duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton by J.
Mund.
The Duel
In the early morning hours of July 11, 1804, Burr and Hamilton departed by separate boats from Manhattan and rowed across the Hudson River to a spot known as the Heights of Weehawken in New Jersey, a popular dueling ground below the towering cliffs of the Palisades.
Hamilton and Burr agreed to take the duel to Weehawken because dueling had been outlawed in New York (The same site was used for 18 known duels between 1700 and 1845.).In an attempt to prevent the participants from being prosecuted, procedures were implemented to give all witnesses plausible deniability. For example, the pistols were transported to the island in a portmanteau, enabling the rowers (who also stood with their backs to the duelists) to say under oath that they had not seen any pistols.
Burr, William P. Van Ness (his second), Matthew L. Davis, and another (often identified as Swartwout) plus their rowers reached the site first at half past six, whereupon Burr and Van Ness started to clear the underbrush from the duelling ground. Hamilton, Judge Nathaniel Pendleton (his second), and Dr. David Hosack arrived a few minutes before seven.
Lots were cast for the choice of position and which second should start the duel, both of which were won by Hamilton's second who chose the upper edge of the ledge (which faced the city) for Hamilton. However, according to historian and author Joseph Ellis, since Hamilton had been challenged, he had choice of both weapon and position. It was Hamilton himself that chose the upstream or north side position.
All first-hand accounts of the duel agree that two shots were fired; however, Hamilton and Burr's seconds disagreed on the intervening time between the shots.
It was common for both principals in a duel to fire a shot at the ground to exemplify courage, and then the duel could come to an end. Hamilton purposely fired first, into the air (which was proven by the presence of a freshly shot tree limb above and behind Burr), without hitting Burr.
Burr, rather than adhering to the common dueling format, shot and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen above the right hip. The bullet ricocheted off Hamilton's second or third false rib—fracturing it—and caused considerable damage to his internal organs, particularly his liver and diaphragm before becoming lodged in his first or second lumbar vertebra.
According to Pendleton's account, Hamilton collapsed immediately, dropping the pistol involuntarily, and Burr moved toward Hamilton in a speechless manner (which Pendleton deemed to be indicative of regret) before being hustled away behind an umbrella by Van Ness because Hosack and the rowers were already approaching.
Burr returned on his barge and had breakfast in Manhattan. According to Van Ness, he ate eggs and toast.
It is entirely uncertain which principal fired first, as both seconds' backs were to the duel in accordance with the pre-arranged regulations of the duel (and also so the men could later testify that they "saw no fire").
After much research to determine the actual events of the duel, Pulitzer-prize winning historian Joseph J. Ellis gives his interpretation:
Hamilton did fire his weapon intentionally, and he fired first. But he aimed to miss Burr, sending his ball into the tree above and behind Burr’s location. In so doing, he did not withhold his shot, but he did waste it, thereby honoring his pre-duel pledge. Meanwhile, Burr, who did not know about the pledge, did know that a projectile from Hamilton’s gun had whizzed past him and crashed into the tree to his rear. According to the principles of the code duello, Burr was perfectly justified in taking deadly aim at Hamilton and firing to kill.
The pistols
The Pistols Used in the Duel
Others have attributed Hamilton's apparent misfire to the hair-triggered design of the pistols Wogdon dueling pistols, both of which survive today.
Only Hamilton, familiar with the weapons, would have known about and been able to use the hair-trigger. However, when asked by Pendleton before the duel if he would have the "hair-spring" pistol, Hamilton reportedly replied "not this time."
The "hair-spring" pistol provided an advantage because it took less time to fire, being more sensitive to the movement of the trigger finger.
The pistols belonged to Hamilton's brother-in-law, John Barker Church, who was a business partner of both Hamilton and Burr. He purchased the pistols in London in 1797. They had previously been used in a 1799 duel between Church and Burr, in which neither man was injured.
In 1801, Hamilton's son, Philip, used them in the duel in which he died.
In 1930 the pistols were sold to the Chase Manhattan Bank, now preserved by JPMorgan Chase & Co. The guns are on display in the Executive Conference center of 277 Park Avenue in Manhattan.
The pictured pistols appear to be one flintlock and one percussion-cap. It is my understanding that (a) duelling pistols were supposed to be identical, thus affording no advantage, and (b) that the percussion cap was invented later than 1804. Unless one of the pistols was subsequently modified (why?)...
Can anyone shine a light on this one?
Not only that, the fore-grips, pistol grips and trigger guards are different. Possibly the photo is fake-but-accurate?
I sometimes wonder why we got away from this for people in political office.... Of course, I don’t think dueling is a good idea for us normal people, but for those ‘above the law’ as are Congresscritters, I think it should be THE LAW they MUST duel when they disagree...
I had always heard that Burr fired deliberately at Hamilton--this version seems to want to minimize Burr's guilt. I'm not surprised that Ellis would be part of it. He is a Jefferson scholar who rejected the story that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children, but reversed himself in 1998 when Democrat scholars thought trashing Jefferson would help Clinton survive the Lewinsky scandal. (There was new DNA evidence that came out about that time, but it was inconclusive.)
Where is the argument about where Burr fired? No one has ever said the shot was a ricochet, so ipso facto he must have shot at least in the direction of Hamilton since he killed him.
There have been several articles looking at the hair-trigger angle of the story over the years in magazines such as the Smithsonian. The crux of them as I take it is that Hamilton said he didn’t want the hair trigger set, but then set it himself secretly trying to get an “ethically challenged” advantage on Burr, but when he brought down his weapon too quickly, it fired into the air. In essence, he cheated, and lost.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
